Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Bulawayo High Court

Nkani Khoza and Jimmy Moyo and Collet Moyo v The State

HB 128/28

Case Details

Court
Bulawayo High Court
Date
23 July 2025
Citation
HB 128/28
Neutral Citation
[2025] ZWHB 128
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Criminal Appeal

Bench

Presiding
Ndlovu J
Full Bench
Ndlovu JMutevedzi J
Areas of Law
Criminal LawCriminal Procedure
Keywords
assaultalibicommon purposedefence of propertymob violence
Tags
assaultappealalibicommon purpose
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • E
  • u
  • r
  • o
  • p
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • C
  • o
  • n
  • v
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • o
  • n
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • (
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • s
  • )
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 7
  • P
  • o
  • w
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • o
  • f
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • C
  • o
  • u
  • r
  • t
  • s
  • (
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • )
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • C
  • o
  • u
  • r
  • t
  • S
  • e
  • r
  • v
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • L
  • e
  • g
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • i
  • d
  • ,
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • P
  • u
  • n
  • i
  • s
  • h
  • m
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • o
  • f
  • O
  • f
  • f
  • e
  • n
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • I
  • m
  • m
  • i
  • g
  • r
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 8
  • C
  • o
  • r
  • o
  • n
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 9
  • O
  • f
  • f
  • e
  • n
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • R
  • e
  • h
  • a
  • b
  • i
  • l
  • i
  • t
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 4
  • P
  • r
  • i
  • s
  • o
  • n
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 5
  • 2
  • P
  • r
  • i
  • s
  • o
  • n
  • R
  • u
  • l
  • e
  • s
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • p
  • p
  • e
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 6
  • 8
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • p
  • p
  • e
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 5
  • S
  • e
  • r
  • i
  • o
  • u
  • s
  • O
  • r
  • g
  • a
  • n
  • i
  • s
  • e
  • d
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • P
  • o
  • l
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 5
  • C
  • o
  • n
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • t
  • u
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • R
  • e
  • f
  • o
  • r
  • m
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 5
  • C
  • o
  • u
  • r
  • t
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 2
  • 0
  • P
  • o
  • l
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • ,
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • ,
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • C
  • o
  • u
  • r
  • t
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 2
  • 2
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Did the state prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of assault?","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Medical evidence, witness testimony, identification of appellants"}
  • {"issue_text":"Did complainants' concession that a mob assaulted them absolve appellants of liability?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Common purpose doctrine, mob participation"}
  • {"issue_text":"Were the court a quo's factual findings unreasonable?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Credibility assessment, defence versions"}
  • {"issue_text":"Was the defence of property available to appellants?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Denial of assault, property defence plea"}
  • {"issue_text":"Was third appellant's alibi properly investigated?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Alibi raised, lack of investigation"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

Three appellants were convicted of assaulting two complainants who were loading cattle at the first appellant's homestead. The third appellant raised an alibi defence which was not investigated. The court found that the first and second appellants acted in common purpose with villagers to assault the complainants, while the third appellant's alibi was upheld due to failure to investigate.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →